English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Focus Interpretations: Comments on Geurts and van der Sandt(2004) 1 1. Background Presuppositions The rule in (1) below is the centerpiece of Geurts and van der Sandt's Interpreting Focus: (1) The Background-Presupposition Rule (BPR) Whenever focusing gives rise to a background λx.ϕ(x), there is a presupposition to the effect that λx.ϕ(x) holds of some individual. According to this rule, focus on Lyn in an utterance of Lyn arrived triggers a presupposition to the effect that someone arrived. Geurts and van der Sandt saddle the BPR with the following unwarranted and incorrect claim: (2) " The main prediction that the BPR gives rise to …is that focusing should cause the projection behaviour that is characteristic of definite noun phrases, factive verbs, and the like. " I will offer an example with definite descriptions to show the claim is incorrect. Below, we will see an example from Rooth(1996a) which uses a cleft to make the point. More interestingly, Geurts and van der Sandt actually have an explanation for why the claim is incorrect, which in turn serves to enhance the credibility of the BPR. To illustrate the fallacy of the claim in (2), consider the example in (3): (3) If the Health Ministry has discovered a cure for cancer, they're probably still testing it, and if Merck F has discovered a cure for cancer, they are probably working on a marketing plan. Focus on Merck leads, via the BPR, to the presupposition that someone has discovered a cure. This presupposition is bound in the antecedent of the previous conditional. We now replace the second if-clause with one containing a definite description: (4) If the Health Ministry i has discovered a cheap cure for cancer, they're probably still testing it, but if the cure they i discovered is expensive, they are probably working on a funding plan. The definite description triggers the presupposition that the Health Ministry discovered a cure for cancer. This type of presupposition cannot be bound inside the antecedent of the previous conditional and so the presupposition is accommodated globally. 1 Thanks to Daniel Büring these remarks are much better than they otherwise would have been. Background presuppositions have a wider set of binding sites to choose from than do other presuppositions. This claim is consistent with Geurts and van der Sandt's demonstration that any place you can bind a cleft or definite-description presupposition, you can also bind a background …

Focus Interpretations: Comments on Geurts and van der Sandt (2004)